Forum menu
OP here; I don’t need a Garmin. I don’t even own one, (yet😏) My point that I tried to make is why should religious niceties trump policy that (however clumsily) has been put in place to ultimately prevent harm or even in extreme circumstances, death? And why should my mate Harry, who is Technically a Sikh, but about as observant as a blind Jim Davidson, get a free pass to wear wrist ornamentation whereas atheist Sally, who’s simple bracelet was given to her by her daughter a week before she was killed), have to take it off? (Both true examples for what it’s worth)
Ally these points to the fact that it is an ill informed and poorly evidenced policy at best, and a cheap diversionary propaganda policy at worst, made me think that there’s a conversation worth having here.
I don’t think that there should be any religious exemptions. Bare below the elbow should mean actually bare below the elbow, no ifs or buts. Hurt feelings at having to take stuff off are just that; hurt feelings, whether or not there is some sort of historical but ultimately evidence free reason for the hurt feelings. Why should one group of peoples hurt feelings be considered more important than other people’s hurt feelings?
Upshot – no evidence that wearing to and from working increases infection risk, but staff told to either change or cover it up because of public perception.
Have you ever thought about the daily life of a seat on a bus? Snot, food, dirty hands and worse, which then gets transferred onto the overalls of the nurse and carried into hospital. Sure, it’s not going to be as bad as what people carry in on their feet but people don’t routinely do handstands in hospital, or play with the soles of their shoes. And even if there is only a chance of a tiny bit of infection being reduced, why risk it?
I see plenty of hospital staff wearing overalls out of work around us. I also worked in the food industry and labs and find it difficult to believe that hospital staff are allowed to do it.
didn’t Matthew & Luke (of Bible fame) both say “Sikh and you will find”
Moses didn't wear a helmet either when he came down the mountain in his Triumph.
And Jesus killed a kid when he pulled a skid on his Yamaha.
not to mention incurring some horrific dustbin lid injuries
get a free pass to wear wrist ornamentation whereas atheist Sally, who’s simple bracelet was given to her by her daughter a week before she was killed), have to take it off? (Both true examples for what it’s wort
she doesn't have to or its discrimination. It works both ways. If she is being told to remove it for H&S grounds then that trumps any religious exemption.
If she is being told to remove it for H&S grounds then that trumps any religious exemption.
She IS being told to take it off for (possibly spurious) H&S reasons, which Harry IS exempted from on religious grounds. First world problems, but it’s not right, is it?
H&S or infection control as it seems you’ve switched the reason?
Either way I’m not sure why it would be discrimination.
She IS being told to take it off for (possibly spurious) H&S reasons, which Harry IS exempted from on religious grounds. First world problems, but it’s not right, is it?
Then everyone else should be told to remove wrist jewellery as well then. If you choose religion over the law then you shouldn't be exempt. sikhs should wear motorcycle helmets if they want to use one. Religion shouldn't trump law but sadly it does.
You are protected by law from discrimination because of your religion or belief if you:
have no religion, for example, if you are an atheist.
H&S or infection control as it seems you’ve switched the reason?
IP&C is a form of H&S isn’t it? If not I stand corrected.
I agree with Poah that it’s a form of (albeit minor) discrimination; but I think that as an atheist one would not be protected under discrimination law. An absence of a protected characteristic would not afford protection I don’t think.
Edit; apparently atheists are afforded some protection under law. It would be interesting to see how a discrimination claim would play out though.
IP&C is a form of H&S isn’t it? If not I stand corrected.
No they’re separate.
Try challenging it if you think it’s discriminatory but I’d consult your union’s solicitor first.
I would put money on a turban providing more protection than the lowest quality, barely legal, open face helmet. So just think of it as a cloth helmet.
And you mentioned wedding rings being allowed for Christians, some breaking news for you atheists can wear wedding rings. See no discrimination.
apparently atheists are afforded some protection under law.
It isn’t “some” it’s the same. Y
Aye, that’s true; but there’s no more point than if I wore a turban on a motorbike really, is there?
Interestingly as an aside, wearing of turbans by non Sikhs on motorbikes has been tried, and they didn’t get away with it.
Could an atheist wear a plain metal bracelet as a Sikh can under ‘bare below elbow’ guidelines? Could an atheist wear 3/4 length sleeves as a Muslim female is allowed under the guidelines?
If so, then I agree, it’s not discrimination, it’s just an entirely pointless guideline.
TheManagementofHealthandSafetyatWorkRegulations1999.
These regulations cover patients and others exposed to microbiological infections, and include infection control measures.
Apparently not separate; came across this whilst trawling through the below linked document, which is the most up to date DOH guidance that I can find on Bare Below the Elbow. Interestingly this document also provides an exemption for ambulance staff to wear wrist watches, stating;
“For some clinical staff working outdoors, particularly ambulance teams, a wrist-watch may be essential. Where worn, these wrist-watches must be washable and be removed for hand washing.”
Oooh! Didn’t know that.
Yeah it’s local policies that prevent watches NWAS allow staff to wear them, other trusts do a blanket ban as it’s easier to manage then making sure people wash their watch.
Have you ever thought about the daily life of a seat on a bus? Snot, food, dirty hands and worse, which then gets transferred onto the overalls of the nurse and carried into hospital.
Not sure about what your local trust gets upto but;
- The only nurses I know who wear "overalls" are flight nurses.
- If you believe what nurses sit on can be easily transferred to their patients then its likely your knowledge of nursing procedures involves a search on Pornhub containing the words 'face', 'sit' and 'nurse'.
Is there more concern about what they are bringing out of the hospital rather than taking in?
– If you believe what nurses sit on can be easily transferred to their patients then its likely your knowledge of nursing procedures involves a search on Pornhub containing the words ‘face’, ‘sit’ and ‘nurse’.
You don’t see that it’s in any way possible a nurse may touch their clothing with their hands at some point during a shift ?
You don’t see that it’s in any way possible a nurse may touch their clothing with their hands at some point during a shift ?
I'm sure they/I do so regularly throughout a shift but as posted previously..
Is the 'religious exemption' theme purely about hygiene, cos I've noticed a number of religious stations on my dab radio.
If only there was some means by which I could permanently de-select them:)